clv0116 Posted February 13, 2009 Posted February 13, 2009 I've just been informed elsewhere that cohabitation with someone is precisely (or EXACTLY in her words) the same as marrying them. While I personally don't believe this to be true I'd like to see what the majority of folks here believe on that subject. Please discuss.
Trialbyfire Posted February 13, 2009 Posted February 13, 2009 IMO, they're not even close unless you're both fully committed to cohabitating for the rest of your lives. While nothing's guaranteed to last forever in life, when you enter marriage, that's the concept you've committed to. Living together is like a trial run for the real thing. If it doesn't work out, it's far easier to walk away unless you live in a jurisdiction where there's a clock on common-law. If you do live in a juridisction of common-law, you'll find that if people are uncertain or don't have plans to commit for the long-term, they'll find an excuse to walk, just before the legal clock ticks off.
Geishawhelk Posted February 13, 2009 Posted February 13, 2009 No it's not. Although I'm wondering if she's referring to a very long-term arrangement, in which a person can be considered to be a "common Law" spouse, and has pretty much earned the same legal rights as a spouse. THis is a myth. certainly, in the UK, no such status actually exists, although many mistakenly believe it does. The following is an extract from a Legal site in the UK, discussing "Common Law Marriage Contracts": Although couples may act as if they are married and buy property together, have children, and open joint bank accounts, they do not have the same legal rights as married couples should they split up. When unmarried couples split up they have virtually none of the legal rights that married couples do regarding such issues as financial support and property rights. Common Law Marriage and Rights As far as rights are concerned common law marriage contracts are not worth the paper they aren’t written on. Unmarried couples do not have the same rights as those who are legally married and this is where problems arise when couples split up. Property rights and living arrangements can be a big problem when unmarried couples split up.
melodymatters Posted February 13, 2009 Posted February 13, 2009 I believe that we all create our own relationships, and that for some people, living together is just as committed as marrying. ( Blind otter has said this over and over for the three years I've been on here, and I believe that this is truth to her) BUT, if you are asking MY opinion, heck no ! Reread Tbf's post for my vote, as I agree with her completely. I believe it is much easier to walk, or even consider walking when things get tough without that " piece of paper". To me, it is family above everything. If you are my BF, you are just that, an adornment to my life, which CAN be replaced. If I marry you, you are my FAMILY, and count just as much as kids, sibs, parents etc. To me, THAT is the difference. And being 100% Italian, family is VERY important to me.
Taramere Posted February 13, 2009 Posted February 13, 2009 THis is a myth. certainly, in the UK, no such status actually exists, although many mistakenly believe it does. I think some of the confusion stems from the fact that until just a few years ago, declarators of marriage by cohabitation and repute could be obtained in Scotland (though not in the rest of the UK). In practice, such declarators were seldom sought. The practice of issuing declarators on that basis was eventually abolished in Scotland on the grounds that it was all just too vague (eg length of cohabitation required before it could be classed as a marriage by habit and repute).
EnigmaXOXO Posted February 14, 2009 Posted February 14, 2009 Having been in a 15-year marriage and currently in an on-going ten year committed relationship with my best friend and life partner... for me it feels and functions every bit the same way. On every single level. The only difference is --- I’m much happier in this relationship than I ever was in my marriage. But before I’m misunderstood, I think it’s important to point out that our relationship works not because of our living/relationship situation... but because of the two people in it. Our personalities, dispositions and philosophies about life are in sync and we fit together well. Wouldn’t “change” a darn thing about “us” even if we could. Or try to fix what ain’t broke. I also have a cousin who’s been living with her partner for seventeen years and still going strong. In spite of their FOUR teenage boys!! I've just been informed elsewhere that cohabitation with someone is precisely (or EXACTLY in her words) the same as marrying them. While I personally don't believe this to be true I'd like to see what the majority of folks here believe on that subject. I believe that some states here in the US also consider it the same thing. Which is why they have instituted “common wife” laws. Now if you’re speaking in terms of your cultural, moral, personal, spiritual or religious convictions... than I think that’s a matter better left to our own individual opinions. Me... I respect the relationship between two individuals. Period. Don’t care whether that couple is married or not so long as they’re happy and they’re not hurting each other in the process (or anyone else).
lonelyandfrustrated Posted February 14, 2009 Posted February 14, 2009 It's exactly the same, just like a 12-month lease is EXACTLY the same as a 30-year mortgage.
Lizzie60 Posted February 14, 2009 Posted February 14, 2009 I've just been informed elsewhere that cohabitation with someone is precisely (or EXACTLY in her words) the same as marrying them. While I personally don't believe this to be true I'd like to see what the majority of folks here believe on that subject. Please discuss. I think.. on a long run.. it is the same thing.. less the 'paper'... I was with my first 'ex' for 18 years, common-law, I was living in Ontario then.. so the law was, upon separation, it was 50/50.. here in Quebec... it's a whola different thing.. the woman has no right if there is no marriage... It all depends what you want.. if you want 'rights' then marriage is fool-proof.. If you are common-law.. make sure your name is on the house as co-owner... so you don't lose anything upon separation. But, on a personal, emotional level, it's the same thing. IMO
sb129 Posted February 14, 2009 Posted February 14, 2009 Here in New Zealand, if you co-habit with your partner for 2 years, you have similar legal rights as you would as if you were married. I co-habited with my husband before we got married. While the daily ins and outs of our life haven't changed, since we got married there is a slightly different dynamic, definitely. Much of it is how other people treat you. My H is now a fully sworn in member of my family (and vice versa) and is treated as such. We are eachothers next of kin. Our assets are joint, our finances are joint, and we are going to have a baby this year, so to us its nice to be married for him/her. We made a public, legally binding commitment to our relationship in front of all our families and friends, and that was an amazing feeling. Before the wedding, I couldn't really comprehend how great that would feel- I wasn't particularly bothered about being married. However now that I am, I am really glad we did it- I am the most secure and happy I have ever been and its great.
Trialbyfire Posted February 14, 2009 Posted February 14, 2009 Yes mel, that's exactly it. When you marry, you become family. Having said that, there are dealbreakers to marriage such as infidelity and other kinds of abusive behaviours. While I can't and won't divorce my family, since they've never cheated, I certainly hopped to in my marriage. In B.C., I believe the common-law clock starts at two year period. In Ontario and Alberta, I think it's three years. If this is incorrect, someone correct me, since I've never lived common-law before and don't purport to be an expert. In B.C., common-law partners have greater rights upon cessation of the relationship than Ontario-ites, although neither is identical to being married, from a legal aspect.
SoulSearch_CO Posted February 15, 2009 Posted February 15, 2009 I think they can function the same. However...I think it CAN be a whole lot easier to leave a cohabitation than a marriage. I think I tried more times than I would have bothered to fix my marriage if we hadn't been married...meaning if we were just living together when that crap went down, it wouldn't have hurt as much and it would have been easier to leave without the stigma of being some kind of quitter. On the topic of common-law...in Colorado there is NO time period. If you live together, have joint assets, and present yourself as married, you are married. But that's the kicker - both of you have to view it as married and present yourself as such. But then, this is the same state where you can get a marriage license and then with just you and your SO present, marry yourselves together. I think marriage is taken way too lightly.
Rerun Posted February 15, 2009 Posted February 15, 2009 SoulSearch_CO said: On the topic of common-law...in Colorado there is NO time period. If you live together, have joint assets, and present yourself as married, you are married. But that's the kicker - both of you have to view it as married and present yourself as such. But then, this is the same state where you can get a marriage license and then with just you and your SO present, marry yourselves together. I think marriage is taken way too lightly. That's kind of how it is in Texas. However, instead of the joint-assets provision, all a couple has to do instead is "hold out to others" that they are married. This can be as simple as signing an insurance paper where you've listed your SO as spouse, or presenting your SO to others as your husband or wife. My ex learned that the hard way two years ago when I took half of everything that she earned during our 12 year CL marriage in a civil divorce. She then tried to deny that we were married until my lawyer and I presented the evidence of "holding out". Further, the stupid bimbo wore the ring I gave her to court. That judge saw the ring, asked her what it was-- and she said, "That's my wedding ring that 'Rerun' gave me." Busted. Score!
michelangelo Posted February 15, 2009 Posted February 15, 2009 There is no common law marriage "status" in this state. The emotional bond does not depend on a marriage license, sure. However, the legal status of marriage is not duplicated by living together, now is the familial and community respect there universally as it is for marriage.
Nikki Sahagin Posted February 16, 2009 Posted February 16, 2009 Yes....and no.... I mean, you live together, you have kids, you are both committed to staying together - that's marriage in a nutshell isn't it? But without that bit of paper hovering in the background...(i'm on a mad one against marriage today - sorry!). I think it's much less preasure than real marriage but shares many of it's essential incredients. I know of a few couples never married but for all extensive purposes they ARE married. No real difference being in their house to a married couples house...just a ring missing on their fingers!
Author clv0116 Posted February 16, 2009 Author Posted February 16, 2009 The level of family and personal commitment involved not to mention legal contracts make them fundamentally different to me. I don't see a lot of women complaining here because "he won't let me move in" so I think I'm not alone by a long shot. I will never co-habit with someone outside marriage either, to me it's just a weak substitute for the real deal.
Curmudgeon Posted February 16, 2009 Posted February 16, 2009 Not even close! It's a matter of commitment -- not just emotional or personal but legal and societal as well. It's the difference between appetizers and a multi-course meal.
blind_otter Posted February 17, 2009 Posted February 17, 2009 Mel mentioned my beliefs earlier... I've been married, and I've been with my S/O now for almost 4 years - longer than I was with my exH. I have to say I feel more committed to my S/O than I ever did to my exH, even before we had our son. I think the committment happens between the two parties involved - and no amount of legal interference will confer anything magical upon any relationship. Just because you're married does not mean you are any more committed or involved with each other. We've talked about it, and he's asked more multiple times. I figure we will one day, sure. But in my heart I am already committed to spending my life with him, so legal marriage would just be an afterthought - something we do to make other people more comfortable with our relationship. But cohabitation is NOT the same thing as being permanently committed to each other. I know lots of people who just lived together briefly to save money and then parted ways.
Lizzie60 Posted February 17, 2009 Posted February 17, 2009 other than marriage is a 'religious' thing.. and sometimes for the difference in civil laws.. there is absolutely NO differences. you could be just as happy, even happier when not married.
riobikini Posted February 17, 2009 Posted February 17, 2009 I think it depends on what the two of you are expecting out of the relationship. I f she wants deeper commitment and he just wants someone nice to come home to, stormy weather is bound to appear. -Rio
riobikini Posted February 17, 2009 Posted February 17, 2009 (Smile) Just thought I'd check in and see if any of the old crew happened to be here. It's been a while since I visited LS. Looks like alot of new folks are posting. (Smile) Same problems -just new people. Ah -gad! Love and war. What else is there? -Rio
marlena Posted February 17, 2009 Posted February 17, 2009 (Smile) Just thought I'd check in and see if any of the old crew happened to be here. It's been a while since I visited LS. Looks like alot of new folks are posting. (Smile) Same problems -just new people. Ah -gad! Love and war. What else is there? Rio, it is SO good to see you again. I hope you are well. I also hope you stay on at LS. Yes, love and war! Indeed what else is there?
marlena Posted February 17, 2009 Posted February 17, 2009 Cohabitation and marriage? Hmm..I've tried both and they were quite different. When you live with someone, it is easier to leave if you have to. Not emotionally, that's still hard, but practically as you are less likely to have common assets and strong family ties. What makes the BIG difference is children. Once they are in the picture, leaving the marriage becomes way more difficult.
blind_otter Posted February 17, 2009 Posted February 17, 2009 Cohabitation and marriage? Hmm..I've tried both and they were quite different. When you live with someone, it is easier to leave if you have to. Not emotionally, that's still hard, but practically as you are less likely to have common assets and strong family ties. What makes the BIG difference is children. Once they are in the picture, leaving the marriage becomes way more difficult. Children are the issue, of course. It was extremely easy for me to end my marriage because we had no shared property or children - it took about 10 minutes total at the courthouse, once our court date finally arrived. The judge was like, do you wanna divorce? We said yes. He signed the papers and moved on to the next couple. Nowadays, though, whoever signs the birth certificate of the child is liable for that child's welfare, whether the parents are married or not.
Lizzie60 Posted February 17, 2009 Posted February 17, 2009 Cohabitation and marriage? Hmm..I've tried both and they were quite different. When you live with someone, it is easier to leave if you have to. Not emotionally, that's still hard, but practically as you are less likely to have common assets and strong family ties. What makes the BIG difference is children. Once they are in the picture, leaving the marriage becomes way more difficult. it all depends on the amount of years you've been co-habitating.. 18 years of common-law, in my case, was just as hard as any divorce... it's mostly the same procedures.. lawyers, custody, etc. The common assets are the same. family ties also strong after so many years..
Recommended Posts